Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bestial Warlust (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John Vandenberg (talk) 11:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bestial Warlust

Bestial Warlust (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article fails all criterion of WP:MUSIC. Article has no strong, third party, independent references to back up claims of grandeur. Does not assert notability and has nothing that would support its notability. Scarian^Talk 23:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - per previous discussion here. AllMusicGuide provides notability and source. It's really a no brainer. This article is notable as Bestial Warlust was one of the first of its genre in Australia, and if for no other reason, it should be kept as Australians use the english wikipedia and the article is notable to them. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm also not saying it's the best written article and it welcomes improvement (I mean I created the article but barely anyone else has touched it and I don't claim to write perfect articles) but it is notable and thats what matters. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.[1]" - Pulled up from the music guideline... apparently, last time I checked, AMG (if it can even be included as a source) is just one source... it says "multiple" there. Scarian^Talk 23:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - in light of the preceding discussion's result and the additional source found then, it apparently satisfies WP:BAND as one of the premier examples of its style. Unfortunately, one of the external links seems to have died, but I thing the All Music Guide's biography should serve to back the article's claims of grandeur. Huon (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oh crap! Thanks, that link was the highlight of the last discussion and nobody ever remembered to add it in to the article LOL, my bad! Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Despite having an All Music page, the band fail all the criteria for WP:MUSIC. AMG is a database for any band or album, it doesn't necessarily mean they're notable enough for a Wiki article. Funeral 23:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, unless you actually read the all music guide page about them. The first sentence states:

"One of Australia's first black metal bands of note, the wonderfully named Bestial Warlust arguably still qualify as one of its most extreme ever."

That puts a hole in your theory. Keep as the band is notable...obviously. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - actually it doesn't. It was the opinion of two editors that it was notable. Just because it wasn't deleted doesn't make it notable. It just means that more people !voted for keep. Thanks. Scarian^Talk 23:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep given the reference in AllMusicGuide, which certainly doesn't have an article as opposed to a discography for every band and certainly not for every Australian band. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - per previous discussion Kameejl ^(Talk) 23:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• If anyone is too lazy to find the all music lin here it is. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Links proving notability - okay then I just found more links proving notability then. 1. 2. 3.This review talks about how bad BW is but mentions how other editors feel it is a "top" black metal act and even tho the editor dislikes BW, its obviously notable to them. I mean shall I go on? Just look BW up on google and you get 40,500 hits all talking about how NOTABLE the band is!!! Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 00:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - The only WP:RS you've found is AMG. Anyone can make a GeoCities page, that's not a reliable source. That review just looks like an amateur metal fan site. And I've looked through the first 10 pages on Google, the majority of the links are just free downloads and their lyrics. Funeral 00:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - nn subject. Fair Deal (talk) 03:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I don't actually see what part of WP:MUSIC they definitavely meet. It was my understanding that sites that accept reviews and articles from readers (ie:"fans") don't generally meet WP:RS please forgive me if AMG is an exception to this. I don't see that the band(s) that former members went on to participate in are/were any more notable than this band either.Garrie 04:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, significant band in Australian metal history, and further notable via their connections with Deströyer 666. They were notable when they were nominated for AfD 2 months ago and they're still notable now. --Stormie (talk) 06:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I see how Destroyer is just about notable. But I don't see where the multiple sources (Which meet WP:RS) are to prove that Bestial is notable. Bestial has never been on a major tour, they haven't released anything on a major (or independent label), they haven't been the subject of numerous independent, non-trivial news articles... I don't see how the opinion of one writer on a metal site can be construed as making the band notable. Scarian^Talk 10:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect that they haven't even released anything on an independent label, both their albums were released on Modern Invasion, which is one of the bigger and longer-established independent Australian metal labels. See [1]. --Stormie 02:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest that you re-read what you just wrote as the second half of the sentence refutes the first half. --WebHamster 02:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not seeing that. Scarian said "they haven't released anything on a major (or independent label)" which I took to mean he thought they either had released nothing at all, or only self-published releases. That is not correct. --Stormie 04:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes but where is Modern Invasions notability? The label has to be notable aswell. "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." (From WP:MUSIC) - Where is the labels' notability? Scarian^Talk 18:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Don't meet the requirements of WP:BAND--WebHamster 11:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons already stated above. Seal Clubber 01:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I don't know what 'personal' issues there are between User:Navnløs and User:Scarian. This might not a completly clear case, but for the sake of the reputation of Wikipedia don't enforce the notability guidelines verbatim when it comes to an article that is particularly interessting to a certain subculture or scene, in this case Black Metal. The music of Black Metal surely is controversial, but usually the music and what the people of the scene are like in reality are two different things. There are exceptions (-> Early Norwegian black metal scene). I have no really definite opinion of what I should think of the music of Black Metal (I prefer Death Metal), but I did some work on the more serious history of it. The reason why I am taking the time to contribute to this discussion is actually that Navnløs made one particularly useful contribution to the article on Lords of Chaos (book), which is nothing else then a (quite bad) attempt to incorporate Black Metal into some kind of fascism. With the current work done by User:Dbachmann on Nazi satanism I migh actually continue to work on that topic.

Anyway, this current case in question is problematic because we don't have TWO completely reliable sources and because the status of the RECORD LABEL wish pubslished the two albums of the band is not clear. According to User:Stormie, the label Modern Invasion, which released the two albums of this band, "is one of the bigger and longer-established independent Australian metal labels". This would make Bestial Warlust notable according to pararaph 5 of WP:MUSIC. Although we have the AMG page, WHICH SAYS THAT THIS BAND WAS RATHER IMPORTANT, and which is 1 definitely reliable source. The reliability of other sources could be discussed, but I guess that there would bo more that are reliable enough. (I'm out of time, but I can add more on Monday.) Zara1709 10:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, I agree that merely being listed on AMG is not an indicator of notability, but the article on there that describes them as a band of note within their subgenre means that this meets criteria #7 of WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil 23:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC).
• Keep per Lankivell and previous discussion. —Moondyne 03:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per Garrie. Twenty Years 05:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment let this be over once and for all:

• [2] "Notorious Melbourne Black Doom band"
• [3] "Bestial Warlust was one of the pioneers of Australian black metal"
• [4] "One of Australia's first black metal bands of note, the wonderfully named Bestial Warlust arguably still qualify as one of its most extreme ever."
• [5] "It isn't usual for an australian band to have recognition over here in the old continent (also in France)"
• [6] "Why do you think BESTIAL WARLUST has such a cult status over here in Europe?" ... "BESTIAL WARLUST were one of the first satanic Black Metal bands to come through the Australian Scene. It was a big eye-opener for Modern Invasion and the whole Metal thing here"
• [7] "The band became known as one of the most extreme bands of Australia."
• They are mentioned in the book Death Metal Music: The Passion and Politics of a Subculture by Natalie J. Purcell [8] "Significant Australian bands like ... Bestial Warlust"
• They were "popular" before internet was commonplace, but still have plenty of websites covering BW information.
• Their label features notable bands Ulver, Scarve, Lord, Dungeon and Chalice
• They meet point 6 through Deströyer 666 and 7 per above, and to less extent point 4 of WP:MUSIC
• They have toured with notable bands like Incantation and Mayhem

Kameejl ^(Talk) 00:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

None of those links meet WP:RS. As for the other arguments, notability is not inherited. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 01:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The book is and that should be enough to establish notability. Kameejl ^(Talk) 08:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless reliable sources are found and added, as fails WP:MUSIC in current state. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 01:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. Peter Fleet 09:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. —~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 12:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Black metal is a niche genre so to expect it to easily pass WP:MUSIC is ridiculous. I don't know of the band but they are probably notable within the black metal scene and should be kept.--E tac 16:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Not only do I say keep per all of Kameejl's sources, but I would like to point out that Scarian wanted this page deleted because it needed "mutliple" sources and only had the AMG source. Well even if all of Kameejl's sources don't count, the one from the Death Metal Music: The Passion and Politics of a Subculture book does count, so that's already two sources. Also, even if some of those websites don't meet wikipedia's criterion for being reliable it must mean something that there are manty websites saying how notable the band is, even if the websites dont meet all criterion. Also, the band is related to Destroyer 666 and just for that alone it is notable. And its obviously a notable band in Australia, and Australians use the english wikipedia. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 18:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• I ask that this deletion be voided per WP:SNOW as I added the Death Metal Music source in to the article and Scarian only wanted this article deleted for a lack of multiple sources. Now it has multiple sources. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 17:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Having multiple sources was only one reason. There are multiple reasons raised above for deletion, friend. But the most likely outcome will be: No consensus reached. Scarian^Talk 19:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• keep, per beast. Couldn't help but notice this page as the same person who created it keeps bothering me, or is responsible for it. Anyways, anyone who is familiar with the black metal scene, and I understand its a quite underground scene, knows Bestial Warlust. Of course it's going to be hard to prove sources and what not for any black metal band, because of their underground nature. That doesn't stop a lot of black metal bands from having articles on wikipedia. Many times these bm bands are a lot less notable than Bestial Warlust. Just puttin' it out there. Deathbringer from the Sky (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

  Note to closing Admin: This user has been accused of sockpuppetry in the past in conjunction with User:Navnløs (Blizzard Beast) and I recommend that his !vote be looked upon with some scepticism. Scarian^Talk 09:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment I would write more on this, but currently NPOV issues have erupted at Germanic Neopaganism and are likely to take up all my ressources. As far as I see it we have at least two reliable sources here (AMG and the one book), as mentioned on this discussion page. I would like to remind everyone that these need to be worked into the article. I would do it myself, but as I said, there are other issues that I consider more important. Zara1709 (talk) 11:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• keep, As per Kameejl. That really does settle the issue. Lostinlodos (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Appears to meet WP:BAND notability guidelines - being part of an underground scene which receives little or no mainstream attention doesn't actually disqualify it, and the book reference if not already in the article should be there. Orderinchaos 11:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.